View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Wed Apr 17th, 2019 07:19 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6400
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
First Attempt

Introduction

Dynamic thinking can be compared to static thinking as a verb can be compared to a noun, an action can be compared to a picture of an object frozen in time. If the one reading this agrees with dynamic thinking, then it is possible to shed many forms of static thinking, such as, perhaps, belief in general, and belief concerning specific static thoughts. In other words the one reading this may be challenged by these communications that move dynamically from the writer to the reader, whereby the one reading this is thereby able to compare a false belief against an effort to know better from worse concerning a specific fact that matters. There are two examples of what I am attempting to introduce to the one reader, and those two examples were offered in the dedication page of this book. Those two examples are false laws, which are static, and the counter of false laws, which are dynamic processes. One example is the false law that criminals will obey laws so long as every law broken by a criminal is met with a new law that is ridiculously aimed at the next criminal. People actually believe that this type of static thinking will work this time, as if every time this has not worked in the past is forgotten like all the actions are forgotten in the picture frame while the viewer perceives time frozen in that one instance of time that is captured on that picture of time and place.

The opposite of that one example of static thinking is an individual dissatisfied with static thinking to a point at which that individual is sent into action. The knowledge found in dynamic thinking causes the individual to see the time before, the time in present, and the time in the future at once, doing so dynamically, and instead of freezing the time and place, the crime, into an inert, powerless, foreign, fictional, distant, fantasy, the opposite call to action places responsibility, and accurate accountability upon the viewer of the crime that happens dynamically from past, to present, and on into the future. The dynamic thinker agrees to be the solution, which is far from a static belief. Far from being placed into a category of vigilante (someone blamed for having taking the law into their own hands) the dynamic thinker is free from such categorization, which may freeze someone like a deer caught in the headlights, and instead of inaction, the individual prefers independence of thought: dynamic thinking.

In that one comparison of dynamic thinking versus static thinking concerning the opposites of inaction (a false belief that criminals will, this time, obey laws, so long as more blood and money is poured into making more laws) and action (each individual agrees to be the law independently) can also be conveyed, with words, concerning the other natural law example.

As with the rule that criminals as a rule do not obey rules, so it is with the rule that those who are deceived do not, and will not, see the facts that matter in any case. Those who believe, with a static, inert, frozen in time mind set, that they cannot be a victim of this, or the next, fraud, will not, as a rule, take it upon themselves to do the work required to become aware of the facts that matter in that specific case that plays out dynamically from past, to present, to future.

Offered here and now, while reading this, the one reading this can put these two examples together, and they can do so on their own, because they take it upon themselves to see how these two examples work dynamically. Those who are deceived by the fraud that works to freeze people out of the power of law, as a rule, do not know that they are frozen out of that power structure. They are frozen out of that law power, disenfranchised, by such frauds as the lie that inspires people to believe that criminals will obey the next law, and the next law, and all “we” have to do is keep adding more laws to all the many laws that criminals will, someday, obey. Rule 1 for a dynamic thinker is that criminals do not, as a rule, obey laws. Rule 2 for a dynamic thinker is that those who are the victims of criminal fraud, as a rule, are unaware of that fact that matters.

So you are now introduced into the purpose of this book (an assumption, not a belief, on my part) as the assumption is that the one reading this book will be caused to act, not frozen out of the law power. The dynamic process recorded in book form, here and now, is a process by which the one reading this book will be unsatisfied with false versions of what is the law power, and the one reading this book will compare a dynamic version of the law power.

The law power is an individual power first, and secondly the law power is a collective power enforced only by those who agree to take it upon themselves to be the law power. If that law power is idle, any time, any place, what is going to happen at those times, and in those places? History can be a collection of individual lies, frauds, false accounts, that render present and future victims powerless, defenseless, and every ready to be victimized by criminals, or history can be a concerted, willful, effort by individuals to know the facts, as they are in fact, so as to make those facts matter in the present, and in the future, doing so dynamically.

This book freezes in time a dynamic process in which one individual has done the work required to get to a dynamic understanding of the law power, and as it happens that law power was at work during the founding process of America. Not the America captured and frozen on a flag, or on pieces of paper, but the America that was already here when the Pilgrims immigrated, running from slavery in Europe, and the America that was later called Revolutionary. In short the law power is the common law, but not an antiquated, static, picture frame where someone is frozen in time, a black and white picture of a common law couple agreeing to a common law marriage – no – not that. Like that process that was the dedication at the start of this book, and like the process that is this introduction to this book, there will be examples provided to the one reading this book, examples concerning what are the facts that arm individuals with the power of the common law. One example is offered in something called a Bill of Rights. Another example is something that happens when people agree to abide by the common laws of free people, in Liberty, and that action is demonstrated by people who presume innocence until guilty people are found guilty in a trial by the country, a trial by jury according to the common laws of free people in Liberty.